1956 (12) TMI 53 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Validity of agreement of sale for specific performance
- Nature of property - self-acquired or joint family
- Competency of father to enter into the contract of sale
- Legal necessity for the contract of sale
- Existence of oral partition
- Willingness of plaintiff to perform her part of the contract

Analysis:

Validity of agreement of sale for specific performance:
The suit involved a claim for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the 1st defendant on behalf of himself and his minor son, the 2nd defendant. The Subordinate Judge found the agreement to be true and not ante-dated, leading to the decree of specific performance in favor of the plaintiff.

Nature of property - self-acquired or joint family:
The appellant contended that the property was joint family property based on various documents and deeds. However, the court, after analyzing the evidence, concluded that the property was the self-acquired property of the father, differing from the appellant's argument.

Competency of father to enter into the contract of sale and legal necessity:
The court examined the mortgages executed by the father and found them to be valid and binding. The mortgages were for lawful purposes, including the marriage expenses of the daughter. The court also established that the contract of sale was necessitated by the need to discharge mortgage debts and other financial obligations.

Existence of oral partition:
The appellant claimed an oral partition between him and his father, which was found to be false based on evidence presented, including the ration card showing the joint residence of the parties. The court rejected the existence of the oral partition.

Willingness of plaintiff to perform her part of the contract:
The plaintiff demonstrated her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract by issuing notices, purchasing stamp papers, and being prepared to deposit the balance as per the terms of the agreement. The court accepted her evidence and ruled in her favor.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Subordinate Judge's decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming the decree for specific performance in favor of the plaintiff. The judgment extensively analyzed the issues of property nature, legal necessity, and willingness of the parties, ultimately ruling in favor of the plaintiff.